"Foul" language

[addictedkoala]

I’ve been perusing the forum for topics on swearing, and found none which directly address my questions/points. Now, clearly taking the Lord’s name in vain or demeaning the place of eternal damnation into a mere expletive is wrong and sinful. Also, I will grant you the F-word because it is based on the act which is only naturally served in a loving marriage. I have forced myself out of the habit of using any of those in the last few months.

My question concerns words who’s meaning (usually) is not referring to anything sinful nor demeaning the Lord, and yet is still considered sinful. I would use the argument that it’s all about what you’re saying, not your words. Regardless of my words an insult is an insult no matter how small. Granted, I limit my usage according to appropriate time, place, and company and I use it strictly in an expletive sense, no negative feelings (except toward myself for stubbing my toe or something)

Something I often see as an argument against is that it’s offensive to many people and why would you want to offend brothers and sisters in Christ? But then I ask isn’t most of what we say probably offensive to someone? If I start talking about my religion I will obviously offend those who are not Christian. What if I’m talking about politics and someone who disagrees walks by? Those are the most pragmatic examples, but there are others, albeit they are more hyperbolic even if they do happen in real life.

I guess what I’m getting at is, do we want the abolition of free speech based on if something is offensive to us? I just don’t see the point of having free speech if there’s nothing to protect because it’s all been banned. I’m perfectly fine if someone doesn’t want to use it themselves. Although I certainly don’t agree with saying someone who uses foul language “has problems expressing themselves” or “has a limited intellect” which I’ve never been told personally but these kinds of statements are always brought out. Trust me, often when using an expletive in a non harmful way it can convey a whole new/different meaning than what many would call “baby talk.” That being the greatly varied way people swear without actually swearing. “gosh darn it” for example (Not that I say the expletive variant of that statement, just using an example)

Is there anything explicit in the Catechism on this?
What about words like “leg” that used to be very offensive, why is it ok now?

And by creating such a hyper-reactive, negative stigma about these certain words aren’t you locking the bad meaning in place? Honestly, there’s no victory to be had here. Either you lock the meaning in place, or you stop getting offended and they (whoever “they” are) come up with new words. Expletives will abound no matter what anyone does.

I don’t mean to sound condescending, I just love the freedoms, in this case speech, afforded to us in this great nation. Or at least they should be.

 

[SunnaB16]

Is there anything explicit in the Catechism on this?
What about words like “leg” that used to be very offensive, why is it ok now?

And by creating such a hyper-reactive, negative stigma about these certain words aren’t you locking the bad meaning in place? Honestly, there’s no victory to be had here. Either you lock the meaning in place, or you stop getting offended and they (whoever “they” are) come up with new words. Expletives will abound no matter what anyone does.

I don’t mean to sound condescending, I just love the freedoms, in this case speech, afforded to us in this great nation. Or at least they should be.

There shouldnt be any room for obcenities in any sort of company. Its degrading wherever its used. Its always amazed me how most fellas can regulate themselves depending on who theyre with. As for legislation banning it, though: NO! Itd be the thin edge of the wedge, and wed end up in "1984". Offensive language in public places like trains etc is something else, though. Is the use of "Hel!l" sinful? Or "Hells Bells!? That means i`m headed there! (Shudder Shudder!)

The Catechism probably says something about it, but it`s so difficult to find anything in it, who knows where?!

Irish jokes and similar should be taken good naturedly though. If we cant poke a bit of fun at each other, and at ourselves, theres something wrong. It can be a good safety valve, as well, sometimes. If everyone can do it to everybody else, nobody can say that there`s discrimination.

Re the word “leg”: in Victorian times, i imagine the word would have been frowned upon; but look at chair and table legs from them days: if they dont remind us of ladies calves, what do they remind us of?! (gents calves? Haw! Haw!) And long cloths were used to cover them......! "Shes showing plenty of leg!" is crude.
“Givvus a leg up.” is harmless enough.

As U say, circumstances determine words a lot, but “Bedroom” and Bathroom" words are degrading; and it hits you between the eyes when one speaker in a two-man conversation uses them, and the other doesn`t.

God wants to raise us baptised ones up to our dignity as His children, and to bring in all ot the orphaned ones.

PS Prodigalson12 started a thread under Family Life, on the 15th, and muggins here started one on the same day (“Ladies and Gentlemen”), tackling the use of words to describe the two sexes. They were both duds; very few responses. They`re probably down on Page 99 by now!

PPS Do you have any objections if i widen your thread a bit by repeating what was said in "Ladies and Gentleman? i don`t want to hijack your thread…

 

[addictedkoala]

There shouldnt be any room for obcenities in any sort of company. Its degrading wherever its used. Its always amazed me how most fellas can regulate themselves depending on who theyre with. As for legislation banning it, though: NO! Itd be the thin edge of the wedge, and wed end up in "1984". Offensive language in public places like trains etc is something else, though. Is the use of "Hel!l" sinful? Or "Hells Bells!? That means i`m headed there! (Shudder Shudder!)

I don’t know, even when I was ripping out obscenities every other sentence (This was before I really had faith) with my friends I didn’t end up swearing in front of people in authority or in front of children. Anyway I doubt most of my friends (a mix of atheists, agnostics, and Christians) who swear themselves find it degrading…

Rest of the post I pretty much agree on.

PS Prodigalson12 started a thread under Family Life, on the 15th, and muggins here started one on the same day (“Ladies and Gentlemen”), tackling the use of words to describe the two sexes. They were both duds; very few responses. They`re probably down on Page 99 by now!

PPS Do you have any objections if i widen your thread a bit by repeating what was said in "Ladies and Gentleman? i don`t want to hijack your thread…

Go for it, I’m gunning for all “offensive” language since I don’t like how people tread so lightly around everything they say, and seem to think causing any offense in the slightest to people is sinful when no matter what is talked about people can get offended. And the topic presented there also applies to this point.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I think we need to be careful when we discuss “foul” language. For the most part, words that are designated obscene are used not so much to describe a thing, but in order to convey an extremity of emotion. We invoke the abject or the taboo, excrement or sex (or damnation!), in order to describe how intensely we feel about something. Censoring these words amounts to censoring emotions, amounts to saying, “it is inappropriate to feel in this way.” Such censorship suggests the activity of a thought police.

Moreover, even when these words, when used in conversation, refer to the things they actually represent (for the most part, excrement and sex), they are still conveying a particular attitude toward these things, a relationship fraught with emotional baggage. The relationship may be unsavory, the attitude unfortunate, but the words themselves are still expressive of an emotional state and should not be censored.

Finally, most “obscenities” are perfectly good words from other languages. Their transformation into obscenity has to do with cultural and political realities–the “rough” language of a lower class or of a conquered people can easily be conceived of as obscene by a ruling class or a conquering people. Witness the fact that many of our obscenities are Ango-Saxon or low German words–languages and cultures that would seem offensive to Norman conquerors or those with aristocratic pretensions. Witness, too, how southern or backwoods slang, and rural and inner city dialects and accents are often looked down upon by the purveyors of “standard speech”. It should come as no surprise that these ways of speaking are (rightly or wrongly) largely associated with blue-collar working culture and, sometimes, poverty. Culture, class distinctions and politics, therefore, shape what is “acceptable” speech and what is not. Which is to say that “acceptable” speech is a largely artifical and/or constructed concept.

True, certain ways of speaking are more appropriate in certain contexts. But other ways of speaking deemed low or offensive may, even in “inappropriate” circumstances, be needed, principally because they can be more accurately and honestly expressive. Sometimes, even, the difference between a witty put down and an obscene curse is merely aesthetic–a matter of polish, not a matter of truth, honesty, or sincerity.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[addictedkoala]

Deo, I want to print and frame that post on my wall, although I won’t because that would be weird.

Those are my thoughts exactly, but I’m wondering if there is any solid moral grounds for people who hold that swear words are sinful no matter the context. They are certainly free to have an opinion on the use of the words in a literary or expressive sense, but is there any generic moral objection?

 

[revert_jen]

Those are my thoughts exactly, but I’m wondering if there is any solid moral grounds for people who hold that swear words are sinful no matter the context. They are certainly free to have an opinion on the use of the words in a literary or expressive sense, but is there any generic moral objection?

I don’t think there is any grounds for saying that swear words are sinful in all circumstances. But you have to understand the difference between censorship and self-censorship. For example, whether or not it is appropriate to feel toward women the way that most of the cruder epithets imply (and I’m not addressing that, although I have my opinions), it is not in all situations appropriate to express such feelings.

The sin you are looking at in the case of swear words that do not refer to the name of the Lord, is a sin against charity. If you have some reason for using the words that is not connected to their shock value, then that may be an appropriate reason. If the actual point of using the words is that they do contain shock value, then it is unkind to inflict that shock on people unles you know they will not be offended. Please note that knowing someone won’t be offended is NOT the same as thinking they ought not to be offended.

The sin isn’t in the words, the sin is in trying to use words to make people feel upset just by the words. Sorry, that wasn’t very clear. What I mean is, you can use words to upset someone into (for example) pity toward the suffering in Haiti so they will understand the situation better and act accordingly. You can do this without swear words. But if you use swear words to make someone upset by the swear words, where they wouldn’t be upset by the same content without the swear words, then you are just being unkind (and possibly manipulative).

Do I think the government should have any part of censoring swear words? @#$% no!

Do I think it’s appropriate that the large company I work for has a policy where it is against the rules for someone to call me a vulgar female epithet at work? Well, yes, I do. If someone can’t express himself to a woman in an disagreement without calling her a rude name, he can work for some smaller company where there are fewer rules. My company is not willing to pay me enough to put up with being called offensive names.

Would I report someone to HR for doing it? I never have. If someone started doing it regularly and wouldn’t stop when I said it was offensive, I might. It’s hard to say.

But in ordinary conversation outside the workplace, I think people should be allowed to say what they want, but I also think people should be kind enough not to say things that will gratuitously offend people. It’s only when people stop showing ordinary courtesy in their speech that (misguided but sincere) people start talking about wanting to censor things.

–Jen

P.S. I’ve never heard someone say that the use of swear words indicates a limited intellect. I have heard (and reserve judgement on) the idea that the use of swear words indicates a limited vocabulary.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In his Politics the Greek philosopher Aristotle favored censorship of foul language because it contributed to the debasement of language in general, but especially led to bad language habits among the young. Common sense.

The notion that “free speech” trumps bad language is only a recent phenomenon in American politics. Certainly until the 1950s even Hollywood had a healthy respect for not giving foul language examples to the young. Since then idiot lawyers, jurists, authors and entertainers have forced foul language upon the public whether they want it or not. The stock answer is, put down the book or turn off the movie if you don’t like it. Why can’t the stock reply be, “Why do the rights of people with foul mouths trump the rights of people without foul mouths?” Why do we have to pay for a movie and buy a book, then leave the theater or toss aside the book after we have been suckered into buying it?

 

[EmeraldWings]

well first of all, free speech is not at all about speaking however you want or about saying whatever you want to anyone you want,
it’s about the right to speak publicly without censorship or restraint by the government,

as for the foul language, the Church tells us that it is not a sin to use those words(although some clearly are sinful to use) but even though it’s not sinful, we are still encouraged as Catholics to set a good example for others and to set a good example for all Catholics as a whole,
so you are not obligated to stop speaking that way, but you would still be setting a good example for your friends if you did, and God would be pleased with you also.

 

[Jermosh]

The US culture see obsenties as a bad thing, and used for evil intent. This is not the case in other countries. I think the use of the language gets confused for the intent of the conversation, for instance if you call someone a nasty name that is not deserving, its not the word that is wrong, its the intent of the defaming them.

 

[addictedkoala]

well first of all, free speech is not at all about speaking however you want or about saying whatever you want to anyone you want,
it’s about the right to speak publicly without censorship or restraint by the government

I almost forgot I made this thread, in response though I would argue (from a strict legal perspective) that free speech does in fact allow me to say what I want without putting others in danger, which would be something like yelling fire in a movie theater. The founding fathers were most certainly not utilitarians, and just fought a war against a tyranical government, hence their desire for limiting the state’s power. Freedoms are there to protect individuals, not the majority.

as for the foul language, the Church tells us that it is not a sin to use those words(although some clearly are sinful to use) but even though it’s not sinful, we are still encouraged as Catholics to set a good example for others and to set a good example for all Catholics as a whole,
so you are not obligated to stop speaking that way, but you would still be setting a good example for your friends if you did, and God would be pleased with you also.

Anyway from a moral perspective this has all been cleared up for me now. It seems I already agreed with the Church in a roundabout way. Thank you everyone

 

[Ferds_Guiang]

In everything that we do Prudence is key. The use of “foul” language is unnecessary in my opinion since we can express ourselves verbally with the use of many other alternatives.

 

[LilyM]

The use of foul language, absent blasphemy, should be avoided in my opinion. It’s not so much to do with the content of the words themselves, rather what our choice to use them says about us.

Basically, what it says is about its user is that the user is uneducated and/or seriously lacking in self-control - since they are incapable of expressing what they feel in a moderate or intelligent way.

It implies that they lack the vocabulary to express themselves otherwise (after all, swearing takes no effort or education, and there is actually a fairly limited number of swear words out there compared to other words). Or else that they can exercise no control over their tongues.

It’s a bit like being a baby. A baby cries when it’s hungry, cries when it’s thirsty, cries when it’s cold, cries when it’s tired, cries when it’s upset, cries when it’s frustrated. An adult who swears whenever something is wrong is doing no better in terms of genuinely expressing themselves. What’s wrong with SAYING what you’re feeling minus the four-letter words? People are more likely to listen to you and take you seriously when you do, after all.

Note, Deo, that I’m not saying it’s wrong to FEEL angry, stressed, or otherwise emotional, nor to express that anger or other emotion, so I’m not talking about censorship. I’m simply saying that there are many better alternative ways for rational adults to express that anger or emotion than four-letter words.

 

[addictedkoala]

The use of foul language, absent blasphemy, should be avoided in my opinion. It’s not so much to do with the content of the words themselves, rather what our choice to use them says about us.

Basically, what it says is about its user is that the user is uneducated and/or seriously lacking in self-control - since they are incapable of expressing what they feel in a moderate or intelligent way.

It implies that they lack the vocabulary to express themselves otherwise (after all, swearing takes no effort or education, and there is actually a fairly limited number of swear words out there compared to other words). Or else that they can exercise no control over their tongues.

It’s a bit like being a baby. A baby cries when it’s hungry, cries when it’s thirsty, cries when it’s cold, cries when it’s tired, cries when it’s upset, cries when it’s frustrated. An adult who swears whenever something is wrong is doing no better in terms of genuinely expressing themselves. What’s wrong with SAYING what you’re feeling minus the four-letter words? People are more likely to listen to you and take you seriously when you do, after all.

Note, Deo, that I’m not saying it’s wrong to FEEL angry, stressed, or otherwise emotional, nor to express that anger or other emotion, so I’m not talking about censorship. I’m simply saying that there are many better alternative ways for rational adults to express that anger or emotion than four-letter words.

Although I would argue that in many situations swear words are actually the best way to express oneself, I want to keep this topic on morality especially because it would be hard to debate that point without actually swearing myself which we don’t do on CAF of course. You certainly are free to have your opinion on someone’s vocabulary based on their language, but so far I’m not seeing anything immoral about the words in themselves which you acknowledge. Thus my morality question has been answered.

 

[LilyM]

Although I would argue that in many situations swear words are actually the best way to express oneself, I want to keep this topic on morality especially because it would be hard to debate that point without actually swearing myself which we don’t do on CAF of course. You certainly are free to have your opinion on someone’s vocabulary based on their language, but so far I’m not seeing anything immoral about the words in themselves which you acknowledge. Thus my morality question has been answered.

And I’d argue that your argument is wrong. Case in point: compare the original film of Cape Fear (with Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck) with the remake with Robert de Niro. The former expresses the same range of emotions the latter does, and every bit as effectively, and does it without the swearing.

What’s immoral is misusing God’s gift of speech in a way which is not for His glory - a way which makes you look, as I said, dumb and out-of-control. If you were using language for His glory you would use it in ways that make you look rational, intelligent and self-disciplined. As a child of God made in His image and likeness SHOULD look, not the opposite.

Further, St Paul exhorts us to think of ‘whatever is good, whatever is holy, whatever is noble …’ and the like. How is swearing reflective of you thinking in the manner St Paul suggests? It indicates the opposite.

In saying this, I don’t want to give the impression that I think non-blasphemous swearing is a particularly heinous or serious sin, but I don’t think it’s morally fine either.

 

[djeter]

Something I often see as an argument against is that it’s offensive to many people and why would you want to offend brothers and sisters in Christ? But then I ask isn’t most of what we say probably offensive to someone? If I start talking about my religion I will obviously offend those who are not Christian. What if I’m talking about politics and someone who disagrees walks by? Those are the most pragmatic examples, but there are others, albeit they are more hyperbolic even if they do happen in real life.

Foul language has its place. To give you an example: I was recently a member of Saintworks, a recent startup Catholic discussion forum. As someone who no only appreciates but tries ot support Catholic sites on the Internet I signed up and offered a few posts and exchanges with other Catholics.

One of the posts concerned depression and so I offered a comment and left a link to a post I had on my personal blog.

Link here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/20/from-eight-bad-thoughts-to-seven-sins/

The post is a reading selection from Kathleen Norris’ Accidie and Me. There is a graphic with it – a painting that shows Man and Woman in a desert scene where the man is presented as a sphinx-like figure embracing a nude woman. I thought it captured some of the essence of the post: the desert theme, the pride and surfeit of the sphinx like male and woman seemed to fit well with the content.

I received this email from the administrator:

*The policy for the board is to keep links restricted as far as possible to sites, or at least to pages that do not lead directly to violations of modest standards.

This presents a problem because you have that nude painting on your blog, which has been linked to a number of times.

I’m going to request you take the nude off the blog, because of the links to your blog so commonly here.

Otherwise, I am going to have to request you stop linking to the blog. We’re still working out how to handle the policies here precisely, but this is the careful road I am aiming to take. I would prefer not to have to say ‘no more links’ to the blog, or consider removing them entirely, which I will have to consider if the nude painting remains.*

There are other paintings that also present religious works of art that often feature men and women in states of undress – the sort you would encounter in any museum.

I was angry with the administrator for his heavy-handed attempt to censor the content of my blog, angry at him as a Catholic for confusing his prudery with “Marian modesty” (or so he called it). I contacted a priest I admired and copied some information from his site (maryvictrix.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/shame-on-you-amen/) that embodied the excesses of prudery over prudence that fire those who engage in these “sex crusades.” (See above).

And I cursed him for his misplaced prudery. Told him to shove his site up his a** and demanded he remove me from his site. I checked on it today and remove me he did – announcing that I had been “banned” from the site (hardly a removal). So I cursed him again for being a liar (How can you be banned when you’ve demanded to be removed in the first place?). I publish every comment to my site, good or bad. I would never block a comment and then publish a reply saying the original had been “banned.”

I was happy to have the foul language to use, happy the prude found me offensive because I meant to be. Fu*k you is a wonderful creation and is meant for situations like this – and yes, meant for fellow Catholics, be they pro-abortion types or prudes who want to censor books, museums, the Internet, etc. The shock value of foul language matches the shock and offense given.

Am I wrong?

dj

 

[djeter]

Basically, what it says is about its user is that the user is uneducated and/or seriously lacking in self-control - since they are incapable of expressing what they feel in a moderate or intelligent way.

In my example I gave a lucid and detailed response to the Saintworks admin and then cursed him. So I don’t think you could say I was incapable of expressing my anger “in a moderate or intelligent way”. When you argue the theoretical, you can lose perspective.

And you saw how his actions confirmed my anger. He lied and told everyone I had been banned. There are people in authority (in this case self-appointed – and his site has only 26 members) who misuse authority and trust.

The question is (as I see it) can you curse a fellow Catholic for betraying the faith, for mistreating others, for engaging in pro-abortion politics or misleading others as to the nature of the Catholic faith vis a vis abortion, or engaging in some book burning or art censorship? My answer is yes because shock deserves shock.

dj

 

[Newbie2]

And I’d argue that your argument is wrong. Case in point: compare the original film of Cape Fear (with Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck) with the remake with Robert de Niro. The former expresses the same range of emotions the latter does, and every bit as effectively, and does it without the swearing.

What’s immoral is misusing God’s gift of speech in a way which is not for His glory - a way which makes you look, as I said, dumb and out-of-control. If you were using language for His glory you would use it in ways that make you look rational, intelligent and self-disciplined. As a child of God made in His image and likeness SHOULD look, not the opposite.

Further, St Paul exhorts us to think of ‘whatever is good, whatever is holy, whatever is noble …’ and the like. How is swearing reflective of you thinking in the manner St Paul suggests? It indicates the opposite.

In saying this, I don’t want to give the impression that I think non-blasphemous swearing is a particularly heinous or serious sin, but I don’t think it’s morally fine either.

Off topic, a bit, but I lament the use of foul language in movies for the sake of foul language. I think it’s a bit of laziness on the part of the writers, directors and actors, and perhaps also a lack of acting talent; not being able to convey frustration, anger, etc, through their non-verbal acting “skills”.

The question is (as I see it) can you curse a fellow Catholic for betraying the faith, for mistreating others, for engaging in pro-abortion politics or misleading others as to the nature of the Catholic faith vis a vis abortion, or engaging in some book burning or art censorship? My answer is yes because shock deserves shock.

dj

Moral principle number one: Do Good, Avoid Evil i.e. The ends do not justify the means.

Correction may be done for fellow Catholics/christians in firm or gentle manner, whichever the circumstances dictate. However, I would question which circumstances would require the use of foul language rather than a measured, firm response.

 

[djeter]

Off topic, a bit, but I lament the use of foul language in movies for the sake of foul language. I think it’s a bit of laziness on the part of the writers, directors and actors, and perhaps also a lack of acting talent; not being able to convey frustration, anger, etc, through their non-verbal acting “skills”.

Moral principle number one: Do Good, Avoid Evil i.e. The ends do not justify the means.

Correction may be done for fellow Catholics/christians in firm or gentle manner, whichever the circumstances dictate. However, I would question which circumstances would require the use of foul language rather than a measured, firm response.

Well, you’re arguing much the way LilyM did earlier – from a theoretical position. It does sound fine and logical “ends justify the means” etc. but what of the specifics I attempted to jog you to respond to?

Which circumstances? Well, I gave you several. None of those qualify? Really? No matter how condescending, no matter how insulting these people can be? The fact they lie or cheat – you intend to grant them respect?

Even Fr. Neuhaus got blunt with some priest scandal detractors and it was shocking – heads snapped. I’ll try and find some sources on that one for you.

dj

 

[djeter]

Joseph Bottum referred to this blog when he commented on Doug Kmiec’s self serving eulogy of Fr. Neuhaus (not the example I was looking for but certainly fits the bill)

shadow-of-eternity.blogspot.com/2009/01/doug-kmiec-on-fr-neuhaus.html

Some context here:

proecclesia.blogspot.com/2009/01/prof-kmiec-eulogizes-fr-neuhaus-in.html

These are very educated men using the f bomb in a very targeted way.

Make your case for or against these examples. I find them totally appropriate as well as my treatment of the little weasel admin guy.

dj

 

[addictedkoala]

And I’d argue that your argument is wrong. Case in point: compare the original film of Cape Fear (with Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck) with the remake with Robert de Niro. The former expresses the same range of emotions the latter does, and every bit as effectively, and does it without the swearing.

What’s immoral is misusing God’s gift of speech in a way which is not for His glory - a way which makes you look, as I said, dumb and out-of-control. If you were using language for His glory you would use it in ways that make you look rational, intelligent and self-disciplined. As a child of God made in His image and likeness SHOULD look, not the opposite.

Further, St Paul exhorts us to think of ‘whatever is good, whatever is holy, whatever is noble …’ and the like. How is swearing reflective of you thinking in the manner St Paul suggests? It indicates the opposite.

In saying this, I don’t want to give the impression that I think non-blasphemous swearing is a particularly heinous or serious sin, but I don’t think it’s morally fine either.

The problem with that is that not everyone considers the use of swearing degrading to their perception of you. In these situations, saying one expletive (say you stubbed your toe or something) is a much more concise method of expressing anger than a more developed vocab. In addition, everybody knows exactly what you are expressing through the use of just that one word. As for holyness, most of what we say throughout the day isn’t directed at that end, but saying, “I’d like a cheeseburger please” isn’t anything bad.

Now, in inappropriate situations I wholeheartedly agree with you. I wouldn’t dream of swearing in front of children or in formal situations, and in that case I would also agree it shows lack of respect and/or control.